August Wilhelm von Schlegel and the German Romantic Opera

Author(s): Aubrey S. Garlington, Jr.

Source: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Autumn, 1977), pp.
500-506
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological
Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/831051
Accessed: 21-01-2019 16:48 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Musicological Society, University of California Press are collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Musicological
Society

This content downloaded from 217.73.171.82 on Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:48:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 - STUDIES AND REPORTS -

August Wilhelm von Schlegel and the German Roma

By AUBREY S. GARLINGTON, JR.

A TTEMPTS TO CREATE the German Romantic opera go hand in hand

Romanticism itself. It is impossible to speak of an indigenous G
before the nineteenth century, although efforts were made from time t
to place to establish and maintain German traditions that could compe
France and Italy.' The chronicle, however, is always one of opera in G
in German as well-but never one of German opera. Even the eight
Singspiel, seemingly the most truly German of German musico-dr
betrays its origins in the English ballad opera and French popula
attempts such as those of Wieland and Schweitzer (Alceste [Weima
bauer (Gunther von Schwarzburg [Mannheim, I7771), or Grau
[Berlin, 17551) to establish serious German opera in the last half of
century came to naught.
There are a number of interdependent factors contributing to the s
opera at the end of the eighteenth century: an absence of long-sta
dramatic traditions; the lack of a strong state of national consciousnes
for example, in France; the failure of serious composers to be in
uniqueness of German opera; and the transitional state of the German
In fact, it has been claimed that German, as a literary language, was i
formation during the late eighteenth century, whereas French an
nothing of English-had long since passed through the fires of lingui
According to this argument, German opera was not possible until Ge
become a "high" literary language.2 Although debatable, the argumen
for it appears that major concern with German opera as a German ent
sensitivities came to the fore only after the language had reached the he
in the hands of Schiller and Goethe. The actuality of national unit
hand, lay decades in the future-after Romanticism became the do

'The bibliography is copious. See particularly the pertinent sections in L

mair, Die deutsche Oper (Bonn, 1 940) and Donald J. Grout, A Short Histo
rev. ed. (New York, I966), for a general discussion of German opera in the
eighteenth centuries.
2 Alfred H. Neumann, "The Evolution of the Concept 'Gesamtkunstw
Romanticism" (Ph.D diss., Univ. of Michigan, 1951), p. 7. English had long
status of a literary language, but with the absence of an extraordinary music
opera in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries remained a dream. The
dismissed out of hand. Is it indeed possible to create an opera without
language? This is the very heart of the issue presently under consideration.

This content downloaded from 217.73.171.82 on Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:48:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STUDIES AND REPORTS 501

movement in the German speaking areas of Europe

corpus of opera material, suitably "Romantic," an
All things considered, I am convinced that the
absence of a viable German opera lies in the lack o
composers of the seventeenth and eighteenth cen
recalled, did write an opera, Dafne, now lost. Bu
composed only one such work and apparently was
genre any further. (The case of Keiser in Hamburg
to be the exception that gives proof to the rule.)
composers of the eighteenth century either did n
emigrated from Germany and found their fame
Handel), did not work primarily with the Germa
serious operas (Johann Hasse and Christoph W.
other genres (Joseph Haydn),3 or were so intern
unconcerned with specifically German ideas (W.
There is no simple answer for the problem. The
prior to the rise of Romanticism has to be accepted
By the end of the eighteenth century, the situat
efforts-theatrical, literary, nationalistic, drama
attempt to establish an indigenous German opera
irrational devotion to the idea of music which saturat
German Romanticism, that efforts would be made t
the literary orientation of German Romanticism in
expect serious efforts to have been made in the di
polemic in an attempt to find a solution to this di
E. T. A. Hoffmann represent the height of serious
grips with the necessity to create a German rom
prepared by A. W. von Schlegel in his Viennese lec
iiber dramatische Kunst und Literatur.5
Neither August von Schlegel nor his brother Fr
neither, moreover, could claim to be essentially a c

' Haydn's opera activity, however, was not quite as n

D~nes Bartha, "Haydn's Italian Opera Repertory at Esz
Opera: Essays in Honor of Donald ]. Grout, ed. Wi
172-220.

" Gluck, for example, was born in Bohemia of German parentage, worked in Vien
the court languages were French and Italian, and found his greatest success as a co
French operas in Paris. Such internationalism is contrary to the nationalistic fervor
teenth-century Germany. In addition, neither Die Ent~hbrung aus dem Serail (178
Zauberflite (i791), the two major Mozart operas with a German text, can be cons
strictly German works, notwithstanding any chauvinistic attempts to do so.
' See August Wilhelm von Schlegel, Vorlesungen iiber dramatischen Kunst und L
Kritische Ausgabe eingeleitet und mit Anmerkungen versehen, ed. Giovanni Vittorio
2 vols. (Bonn and Leipzig, 1923). Amoretti bases his work on the second edition of 18
as a corrected manuscript copy, prepared by Schlegel himself, for a future edition he d
to see in print. I have used the English translation, A Course of Lectures on Dramatic
Literature, tr. John Black, 2d ed., rev. A. J. W. Morrison (London, 1914). Black's t
first appeared in I8 15; it was corrected and revised in 1846.

This content downloaded from 217.73.171.82 on Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:48:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
502 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Friedrich's fiction notwithstanding. In fact, it has been claimed that, for the Schlegels
Romanticism "represented a philosophical system rather than a spontaneous ex
pression of artistic impulses."' When August planned his Viennese Lectures, h
concern was to fashion as complete a discussion as possible as seen from the viewpoi
of a fervent romantic. Curiously enough, for the four years preceding these lectur
Schlegel had lived at Coppet with Madame de Stael. In fact, it was Madame de Sta
who made the arrangements in Vienna for the presentation of the lectures,
splendidly ironic twist in light of the ringing censure Schlegel heaped upon almost t
whole of French literature and culture.' Schlegel was at the peak of his intellect
powers, and his importance for European letters was never to be greater than in t
decade following his sojourn in Vienna.
Throughout the Lectures, it is readily apparent that Schlegel has no use f
creations which did not manifest some form of the "romantic spirit." When Schle
ransacks the storehouse of the past for all sorts and conditions of creation which ha
the breadth of the "romantic spirit," hence the actuality of life, he is not intimidat
by reputations. Racine, Corneille, Molibre, and especially Voltaire, are weighed in t
balance and found wanting. Instead, Schlegel admires Quinault and Rousseau wh
on first glance, appear to be one of the more unlikely pairings in Western culture. B
Schlegel is consistent with his precepts. His major criteria for discovering that bread
of the romantic spirit he admires, and which he finds in portions of both Quinault and
Rousseau but in few other Frenchmen, is best understood in light of his delight
fanciful, imaginative writing. Such, for him, is synonymous with romantic writin
Because Quinault and Rousseau capture much of the imaginative spirit in the
literary works, they are, in turn, worthy of adulation by the "modern" romantic.
all probability, Schlegel did not know a single note of Rousseau's music or any
Lully's settings of Quinault's texts.)
In particular, Schlegel exults in Shakespeare (the majority of the famous trans-
lations were behind him at this time) because of the older dramatist's grasp of tho
forces which excite the imagination. It is in Shakespeare's plays, especially A M
summer Night's Dream, Macbeth, and Hamlet, that Schlegel finds the flow of fanta
and imagery so rich and luxuriant that, in order to comprehend the essence of t
ideas being presented, rationality and logic are set to one side. The spectator suspen
his credulity in order to enter into the wondrous realm of the imagination, to acce
the Unknown as Truth, even though one portion of the mind rejects such illusions.8
dogmatically rational framework is alien to the true "romantic spirit," either in t

6 Alfred E. Lussky, Tieck's Approach to Romanticism (Leipzig, I925), P. Ioi.

7 J. Christopher Herold, Mistress to an Age: A Life ofMadame de Stael (New York, 1958),
p. 364. Despite the long liaison, the question of "influence" is a most vexing one, not pertine
here, however, since neither Madame de Stadl nor Schlegel was especially fond of musi
Germaine, in particular, had little use for opera. See the exhaustive study by Cheta
Nagayajara, August Wilhelm Schlegel in Frankreich (TUibingen, 1966), esp. Chaps. 3 and
"August Wilhelm Schlegel und der Coppet-Kreis" and "Die erste Phase der Aufnahme de
'Vorlesungen fiber dramatische Kunst und Literatur' bis I8 6."
8 The concept of a "willing suspension of disbelief' passes from Schlegel to Coleridg
famous statement in the Biographica literaria (see the edition by J. Shawcross [Oxford, I907
II, 6). There is no doubt that this is another instance of the many ideas Coleridge absorbed fro
Schlegel and made into his own. See Anna August Helmholtz, The Indebtedness of Samu
Taylor Coleridge to August Wilhelm von Schlegel (Madison, 1907); and G. N. G. Orsin

This content downloaded from 217.73.171.82 on Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:48:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STUDIES AND REPORTS 503

past or in the Romanticism of Schlegel's present. A

to set loose imaginative flights of fantasy is unwor
romantic. For Schlegel, the intellectual faculti
imagination; these faculties are not impersonal cal
comprehensive and involved discussions of dram
fanciful and the imaginative as the critical yardstick
On the other hand, Schlegel would not deny the ne
simply places his emphasis elsewhere."
Since Schlegel is attempting as complete a su
possible, he cannot avoid mentioning opera. Curiou
by name, and he does not discuss in detail a single
pages, during which he has not failed to chastise
French creation mentioned, it comes as somethi
enthusiastic over certain examples of the op&a com
Sedaine. and Favart; neither man, however, is cit

I do not hesitate to declare the whole series of scenes in

of the drunken turnkey set the prisoner at liberty, a m
much were it to be wished that the Tragedy of the Fre
dress, had but a little of this truth of circumstance, this v
attention. In several operettes [Schlegel uses the terms o
comique], for instance, Richard Coeur de Lion and a Nin
not to be mistaken.10

"Coleridge and Schlegel Reconsidered," Comparative

knotty problems of these relationships and influences is
"German and English Romanticism: A Confrontation,
35-56.
9 One has to keep in mind the oft-overlooked fact that Romanticism, in its earliest phases, is
not hostile to reason or contemptuous of cerebral activity. Walter Silz (Early German
Romanticism [Cambridge, Mass., 1929], p. I i) notes that the early romantics were "masters of
incisive criticism and trenchant polemic," accepting as they did both Kant and Lessing. Robert
M. Wernaer (Romanticism and the Romantic School in Germany [New York, 19io], pp.
42-44) quotes Novalis to the effect that "the young poet cannot be cool and deliberate enough.
A genuine poetic, musical style calls for calmness and concentration." He also quotes Friedrich
Schlegel: "When the artist is under the sway of imagination and enthusiasm, he is not in the
proper condition to communicate what he has to say."
Modern criticism, especially that of a popular nature, has obscured most of the subtleties of
distinction here. The classic statement of the symbiotic nature of rationality and emotion lies in
Hl1derlin's statement, "Wer das tiefste gedacht, liebt das Lebendigste." (See Michael Ham-
burger, trans., Hilderlin: His Poems Translated [London and New York, 1952], pp. 101-2,
where this line from Sokrates undAlcibiades is translated "Who most deeply has thought, loves
what is most alive.")
"o Schlegel, Lectures, trans. Black, pp. 328-39. Raoul Sire de Crequy (1789) and Richard
Coeur de Lion (1784) are both operas comiques with music by Dalayrac and Gretry, respec-
tively. In all probability, Nina refers to the famous op&a comique by Dalayrac (1786),
although Paisiello composed an opera buffa, Nina, pazza per amore (1789), which was
extremely popular throughout Europe for several decades.
In this context, it is of interest to note that Schlegel's taste for second- and third-rate
creations, a decided idiosyncracy, is explicable on the basis of his continuous search for
exemplars of the romantic spirit. Ren6 Wellek, A History of Modern Criticism: II. The
Romantic Age (New Haven, I955), pp. 66-69, discusses this problem.

This content downloaded from 217.73.171.82 on Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:48:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
504 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

The presence of the romantic spirit overrides other considerations, even in works not
serious in intent. Here the question of musical viability is unimportant since it is
doubtful that Schlegel knew the music for the librettos he referred to here. Although
Schlegel is not fond of the juxtaposition of spoken language and sung text, long
standing conventions of the opera comique, he is quick to recognize that such practices
are advantageous to the structure of a theatre piece and that these works are indeed
stageworthy, in itself no mean consideration for the romantic polemicist.
Interestingly enough, Schlegel dismisses the two greatest Italian dramatists associ-
ated with opera in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Zeno and Metastasio, on
the basis of their failure-in his eyes-to excite the imagination. Zeno in particular
adheres too slavishly to the tenets of the French tragedy to suit a true romantic, and, in
the French tragedy, Schlegel sees nothing but disaster.
If such brief passages were the only mention of opera in his writings, Schlegel's
thought would not be considered essential for discussions of the foundations of
nineteenth-century German romantic opera. Obviously there is more. The most
revealing and provocative discussion of opera appeared earlier on in the course of the
Lectures; it came about as a result of a detailed investigation and discussion of the
essence of Greek poetry and drama. The way in which the dialogue of Greek drama
was originally delivered had been of interest for centuries. Since the end of the
sixteenth century and the invention of opera, the possibilities of a musically oriented
style of delivery for the original Greek drama had become imbedded in critical lore.
Schlegel takes issue only with the possibility that the original delivery of Greek
resembled in any way the recitative of his own contemporary opera. To his mind,
Greek, like most southern languages, was delivered "with a greater musical inflection
than ours of the North."" For Schlegel, the original declamation of Greek antiquity
must have been more measured than the overly free recitative found in the operatic
practice of his own day, for Schlegel could not conceive of such a shapeless rhythm
existing in ancient poesy. (He obviously had no knowledge of the flexible, but still
measured stile recitativo created for the first operas.) Schlegel recognized, if only
instinctively, that declamation in the Greek tragedy was different from modern speech
as well as modern recitative.
His ruminations led him to examine the possibilities of comparing the ancient
tragedy with the opera. Now, similar forms of comparison had been part and parcel of
Western critical writing since opera came into existence. Yet Schlegel perceptively and
brilliantly rejects this cliche because for him "the primary object [of Greek tragedy]
was the poetry, and everything else was strictly and truly subordinate to it. But in the
opera the poetry is merely an accessory, the means of connecting the different parts
together."'2 It is ironic that Schlegel may well be the first "modern" critic to discuss
opera without justifying its existence on the basis of ancient Greek practice, while at
the same time ransacking history in order to justify romantic inspiration. By not
falling back on the ancients for pious justification, Schlegel is left free to propose a
theory for the making of an opera that remains viable, even today. His "prescription"
for writing an opera is as follows:

" Schlegel, Lectures, trans. Black, p. 63.

'2 Ibid., p. 64.

This content downloaded from 217.73.171.82 on Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:48:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STUDIES AND REPORTS 505

... Take a rapid poetical sketch and then fill up and

anarchy of arts, where music, dancing, and decorati
profuse display of their most dazzling charms, const

Schlegel's recommendation is of great signifi

should in no sense be considered a naturalistic o
century theories and practices with respect
poetics of realism play no major part in Schleg
realism is alien to the poetics of opera. In Schle
of one art over another in the opera. There is b
fantasy and imaginative elements reign suprem
acy of word or tone would not contribute to
nature of opera since Schlegel states categorica
consists altogether in the revelry of emulation b
medley of their profusion."'5 If one approache
Schlegel believed the ancients employed in thei
eral charm of the world of opera would be lost

Gay, tinselled, spangled draperies suit best to the

been censured as unnatural, such as exhibiting h
despondency, are perfectly justifiable. This fairy w
singular kind of singing creatures. .... It would be as
the simplicity of the Grecian Tragedy, as it is absur

For Schlegel, the world of opera is a fanciful

runs riot, a world of "fantastic magic." The ope
of realistic drama; certainly no one should expe
of such a world of reality, presented on the op
are of no consequence in the type of esthetic
readers.

The reign of an "anarchy of arts" in "emulation between the different means"

gives the opera composer an opportunity to delight openly in fantasy, to take pleasure
in those matters an austerely rational esthetic would deny. For Schlegel, elements of
fantasy-the glorification of the unreal as opposed to everyday life-constitute the
true sphere for the opera. Although modern critics do not, as a rule, prefer to think
about the role of anarchy or disorder either in evaluating past creativity or in offering
critical theories for the future,'7 it must be recognized that planned dysynthesis can be

"1 Ibid., emphasis added. The German reads simply "die Anarchie der Kfinste" (Schlegel,
Vorlesungen, ed. Amoretti, I, 49).
"1 See Richard Oliver, The Encyclopedists as Critics of Music (New York, 1947). See also
my article, "Le Merveilleux and Operatic Reform in i 8th-Century French Opera," The
Musical Quarterly, XLIX (1963), 484-97.
1" Schlegel, Lectures, trans. Black, p. 64.
1o Ibid. The original text for this important passage will be found in Schlegel, Vorlesungen,
ed. Amoretti, I, 49-50.
17 See Morse Peckham, Man's Rage for Chaos: Biology, Behavior and the Arts (New York,
1967), however, where a provocative attempt is made to come to grips with such ideas, albeit
with behavioral implications.

This content downloaded from 217.73.171.82 on Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:48:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
506 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

every bit as effective a guide as are efforts directed toward complete synthesis when
discussing the relationships of various arts brought together in a stage work.'" And it
seems that Schlegel actually offered a workable formula for some sort of Gesamtkunst-
werk, uniquely appropriate for the opera, when he presented his "prescription."'9
Hoffmann will give no more credit to the marvelous world of the imagination as the
cornerstone for the German romantic opera he wished to see created.
Although Schlegel's remarks on opera occupy but a small part of his lectures,
length does not preclude importance. The lectures enjoyed wide circulation and
popularity throughout Europe. Their significance for the German romantic opera,
however, has not been stressed sufficiently, and Schlegel should enjoy a better
reputation among opera historians and critics.20 That his main theatrical interests
were not opera but the spoken drama remains apparent despite the fact that he
should, if he were completely faithful to his theories, accept the opera as the romantic
genre par excellence. He did not do so simply because he was not sufficiently aware
musically.
Schlegel's theorizing was to have its harvest insofar as the German romantic opera
was concerned with E. T. A. Hoffmann. We need only to know that in his diary for
January I2, I812, while still in Bamburg, Hoffmann writes, "read much in Schle-
gel's Lectures on Dramatic Art.... I will copy out the most important definitions
from the work ad usum," for the connection to be absolutely certain.2' The fruits of
Hoffmann's reading were to be the all important theoretical work, Der Dichter und
der Komponist, and his no less significant musical chef d'oeuvre, Undine. With these
two creations, the cause of German romantic opera seemed to move closer to
realization. Schlegel's ideas became an important part of this movement.

University of North Carolina, Greensboro

' Total unity need not be the sine qua non for rational order. See Catherine Lord's
provocative discussion of this problem in her articles in the Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism: "Organic Unity Reconsidered," XXII (1964), 263-68; "Unity with Impunity,"
XXVI (1967), 1o3-6; and "Tragedy Without Character: Poetics VI. 1450a 24," XXVIII
(I969), 55-62.
19The Gesamtkunstwerk, of course, does not have to be a German effort only. See my
article, "Lesueur, Ossian, and a 'Synthesis of the Arts,' " Symposium, XVIII (i964), 3 52-56,
where a "formula" very reminiscent, even suggestive, of Schlegel's "prescription" is discussed.
It would have been impossible, however, for Schlegel to have known Lesueur's comments. We
need also to remember that the Gesamtkunstwerk may be neither primarily musical nor
intended exclusively for the stage and still be a Gesamtkunstwerk (see Neumann, "The
Evolution of the Concept 'Gesamtkunstwerk,' " p. 256). It is interesting to note that the
distinguished German romantic painter Philipp Otto Runge was consciously seeking for some
form of the Gesamtkunstwerk when he painted his Tageszeiten (see Rudolph M. Bisanz,
German Romanticism and Philipp Otto Runge: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Art Theory
and Iconography [DeKalb, I9701, pp. 74, passim).
20 Ludwig Schiedermair (Die deutsche Oper, p. 198) is one of the few important writers on
the German opera who has called attention to the importance of A. W. von Schlegel for the
music theater in Germany.
21 Quoted in Harvey Hewett-Thayer, Hoffmann: Author of The Tales (Princeton, 1948),
PP. 352-53-

This content downloaded from 217.73.171.82 on Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:48:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms